Other clubs' transfers

[Yorkie]

Plus I'm as grizzly about PSR in person as I am on here. Introducing alcohol wouldn't help that.

[r0cafella]

@Froggy you never answered my question btw. 

 

Yes or no, the rules should enforce balanced competition? The details are extremely simple to come up with but the underlying principle is Manchester United and Newcastle United should have the same budget should they both be able to afford it. 

 

Yes or no?

[The Prophet]

"Bournemouth winger Rayan has a release clause in his contract that will kick in from the January transfer window onwards — and The Athletic can reveal it will be £130m (€150m). However, the release clause will not be applicable this summer, just six months after he joined the club. It will be active from January, in the 2027 summer transfer window and beyond."

 

Crickey.

[r0cafella]

Just now, The Prophet said:

"Bournemouth winger Rayan has a release clause in his contract that will kick in from the January transfer window onwards — and The Athletic can reveal it will be £130m (€150m). However, the release clause will not be applicable this summer, just six months after he joined the club. It will be active from January, in the 2027 summer transfer window and beyond."

 

Crickey.

At that type of number he essentially doesn't have one. 

 

Amazing business from Bournemouth he's a talent. 

[Froggy]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

@Froggy you never answered my question btw. 

 

Yes or no, the rules should enforce balanced competition? The details are extremely simple to come up with but the underlying principle is Manchester United and Newcastle United should have the same budget should they both be able to afford it. 

 

Yes or no?

 

I feel like there should be a salary cap or something along those lines. I'm not a financial expert but I feel like there should be a better solution than what we have now. At the same time I think total removal of PSR would be a disaster for modern football.

 

I don't want teams to be unable to spend money they have, but I also don't want teams to be able to spend all of the money they have.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Froggy said:

 

I feel like there should be a salary cap or something along those lines. I'm not a financial expert but I feel like there should be a better solution than what we have now. At the same time I think total removal of PSR would be a disaster for modern football.

 

I don't want teams to be unable to spend money they have, but I also don't want teams to be able to spend all of the money they have.

Which is fine, nobody is arguing for unlimited or unsustainable spending. What in arguing for is fair competition providing it can be done sustainably. 

 

We already have what is pretty much a 3 tier league anyway. 

[bobbydazzla]

The PL were very happy to sit back and not lift a fucking finger whilst for years Mike Ashley paid NUFC £0 to plaster Shite Direct logos on every flat space in the ground. No other clubs kicked up a stink about related party transactions then did they. 

 

Other clubs had their noses in an overflowing money trough and happily allowed financial tomfoolery that was deliberately holding another club back.

 

Soon as we get bought, they immediately rush through rules on related party transactions to stop NUFC carrying any out, even though we hadn’t  tried to carry any out.

 

PSR is a designed as a glass ceiling to keep a handful of clubs, who were able to spend whatever they wanted historically and therefore were successful historically, in the same positions of strength going forward.

 

And the rules are set by the teams. It’s not even independent. As long as the majority are happy with the status quo and their spot on the gravy train, then the status quo shall remain.

 

It’s a fucking cartel Froggy.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 07:49 by bobbydazzla

[KingArthur]

4 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

You really think this? I know Chelsea have swindled the rules to avoid punishment (similar to yourselves), but we were absolutely restrained by PSR and have undergone massive cost-cutting measures to try and become more financially compliant. 

 

Not entirely convinced Villa need to sell Rogers, I think they're just willing to sell him because it's an insane amount of money for an overrated player. Nobody was forcing them to pay £200k a week for Rashford and Sancho. If they are in financial difficulty I would say those sort of decisions are more of a factor.

So punishment has been fines? What does that matter? How many key players have you been forced to sell? And Chelsea? If your company has 1000 employees more than any other rival, I think it is quite common way to lay some staff off. 

And Liverpool spent a lot, and they are (reportedly) able to spend few hundred million again. 

I don't know Villa's PSR situation, but they had to sell players last year, and with UEFA rules being more strict, I would guess they are again in trouble. And "having to sell" can also mean that even though they constantly finish top 4-5, they cannot pay Rogers 200-250k a week to keep him. They cannot even though they have money. Neither could we with Isak and PIF has the money. 

They are not paying 200k to Sancho or Rashford anymore next season. Actually your club did pay more for them for years, and didn't seem to matter one bit. 

[Froggy]

24 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

The PL were very happy to sit back and not lift a fucking finger whilst for years Mike Ashley paid NUFC £0 to plaster Shite Direct logos on every flat space in the ground. No other clubs kicked up a stink about related party transactions then did they. 

 

They were very happy to sit back and not lift a fucking finger while we were subjected to a leveraged buyout. No other clubs kicked up a stink about that did they? 

[bobbydazzla]

Just now, Froggy said:

 

They were very happy to sit back and not lift a fucking finger while we were subjected to a leveraged buyout. No other clubs kicked up a stink about that did they? 

Pray tell, how has that leveraged buyout held back your spending on transfer fees and wages ? 

[St1pe]

49 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Everton leading the race for Hackney, according to Ornstein.

Came to post this 

 

Weird we’re not in for him 

[Froggy]

4 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

Pray tell, how has that leveraged buyout held back your spending on transfer fees and wages ? 

 

You're getting there. Just imagine. 

[Kimbo]

1 hour ago, Froggy said:

 

This is the thing with all this embarrassing "cartel" craic, and it is embarrassing believe me. 

 

The "cartel" argument falls apart the moment you ask what Newcastle fans actually want instead. You don't want a level playing field, you want no restrictions on the wealthiest owners in world football.  The established clubs built huge revenues over decades through success, fanbases and commercial growth. You can argue that gives them an advantage, but your answer is essentially "our owners are richer than yours."

 

Like Veruca Salt in Willy Wonka, a lot of you are shouting "I want it now!" Almost like you're blocking out the already huge amount of investment from your owners, or the fact they can continue to pour money into your stadium, training facilities and youth facilities without affecting PSR. Your growth in the five years since they've taken over is colossal. Doubled revenues, won a trophy, regularly competing in the Champions League yet still complaining about the "cartel." Your owners have invested far, far more than ours have.
 

If PSR disappeared tomorrow, you wouldn't be getting rid of a "cartel" You would simply replace it with a system where the club backed by the deepest pockets wins. Dick all to do with sporting merit, just a different route to financial dominance. Without PSR, Qatar could buy Burnley and make them title challengers in a couple of seasons. That's not saving football, it's reducing it to a bidding war between states. You're complaining about unfair advantages while demanding the biggest unfair advantage of all.

 

The real debate is whether PSR is the best way to regulate spending, not whether clubs should be allowed to spend unlimited sovereign wealth fund money. Should there be sustainability rules though? Abso-fucking-lutely. 

This is an embarrassing justification of rules that have killed off competition in the sport. It’s rare to see any Newcastle fan that wants to see us spending more than everyone else in the league.

[Kimbo]

I like how “cartel” is put in brackets as if it’s a conspiracy theory rather than a fact. There are 6 clubs that have acted as a voting block for years, that tried to push through project big picture which would’ve given them control of English football, and tried to push through the ESL.

[Froggy]

25 minutes ago, Kimbo said:

This is an embarrassing justification of rules that have killed off competition in the sport. It’s rare to see any Newcastle fan that wants to see us spending more than everyone else in the league.

 

The league is more competitive now than it has ever been. 

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, Froggy said:

 

This is the thing with all this embarrassing "cartel" craic, and it is embarrassing believe me. 

 

The "cartel" argument falls apart the moment you ask what Newcastle fans actually want instead. You don't want a level playing field, you want no restrictions on the wealthiest owners in world football.  The established clubs built huge revenues over decades through success, fanbases and commercial growth. You can argue that gives them an advantage, but your answer is essentially "our owners are richer than yours."

 

Like Veruca Salt in Willy Wonka, a lot of you are shouting "I want it now!" Almost like you're blocking out the already huge amount of investment from your owners, or the fact they can continue to pour money into your stadium, training facilities and youth facilities without affecting PSR. Your growth in the five years since they've taken over is colossal. Doubled revenues, won a trophy, regularly competing in the Champions League yet still complaining about the "cartel." Your owners have invested far, far more than ours have.
 

If PSR disappeared tomorrow, you wouldn't be getting rid of a "cartel" You would simply replace it with a system where the club backed by the deepest pockets wins. Dick all to do with sporting merit, just a different route to financial dominance. Without PSR, Qatar could buy Burnley and make them title challengers in a couple of seasons. That's not saving football, it's reducing it to a bidding war between states. You're complaining about unfair advantages while demanding the biggest unfair advantage of all.

 

The real debate is whether PSR is the best way to regulate spending, not whether clubs should be allowed to spend unlimited sovereign wealth fund money. Should there be sustainability rules though? Abso-fucking-lutely. 

I haven’t seen anyone on here argue for that at all - folks will have their own opinion of what the rules should look like (I’ve always advocated for expenditure being capped to the highest club’s turnover from the previous season).  I don’t doubt that stupid Twitter nobheads want it uncapped - probably because they’re thick enough to think that PIF would chuck unlimited money at us (they wouldn’t).

 

I don’t think sovereign states should be able to own football clubs.  They should be community assets.  Unfortunately the reason why clubs often have to get outside investment is because of the legions of sad cunts from outside of Manchester who support the club which carries that city’s name (not the blue one).  Millions of the soppy twats have for decades tilted the finances in favour of Man Utd and Liverpool - gormless glory seekers from Truro to Dublin to Oslo pulled the league away from what it should be.  So I’ll take fuck all in terms of lectures from any ‘fans’ of the big three who play in red.

[The College Dropout]

11 hours ago, Ginola said:

I'd assume TCD means Villa are close to a position to compete but that would require aggressive acquisition which would be bordering on the edge of financial regulations and its not unrealistic to assume you miss one target and have to sell and regress as a result of the very restrictive regulations outside of the Sky 6

Aye it was just a thought exercise- no ill will or hard feelings. I saw Villa linked with MGW. If Villa sold Rogers, signed MGW and say 1-2 more top class players 26+ Villa could challenge for the league. 
 

But with the age profile of a squad like that, it would fall off in a few years. 
 

Villa could easily sign Mbaye or other youngsters that develop and go on to build more £50m+ players.  But there is a world where they keep signing Abraham’s and Rashford’s.  
 

As I’ve said in other threads. Villa and Emery don’t seem overly concerned with lowering the age profile of the squad.  Doesn’t mean it won’t change.  

[TheBrownBottle]

6 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

The league is more competitive now than it has ever been. 

It literally isn’t.  

[Kimbo]

2 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

The league is more competitive now than it has ever been. 

Not at the top end, the bit where you actually win something.

[The College Dropout]

Never understand why you lot debate Froggy in good will. 

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, Kimbo said:

Not at the top end, the bit where you actually win something.

There were seven different clubs who were champions in seven consecutive season from 58/59.  There were eight different clubs who were champions between 66/67 and 77/78.  The notion that it’s never been more competitive at the top is absolutely laughable.

 

The difference between then and now?  The greed of Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal - and a revolving door of acolytes.  

[lovejoy]

20 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I haven’t seen anyone on here argue for that at all - folks will have their own opinion of what the rules should look like (I’ve always advocated for expenditure being capped to the highest club’s turnover from the previous season).  I don’t doubt that stupid Twitter nobheads want it uncapped - probably because they’re thick enough to think that PIF would chuck unlimited money at us (they wouldn’t).

 

I don’t think sovereign states should be able to own football clubs.  They should be community assets.  Unfortunately the reason why clubs often have to get outside investment is because of the legions of sad cunts from outside of Manchester who support the club which carries that city’s name (not the blue one).  Millions of the soppy twats have for decades tilted the finances in favour of Man Utd and Liverpool - gormless glory seekers from Truro to Dublin to Oslo pulled the league away from what it should be.  So I’ll take fuck all in terms of lectures from any ‘fans’ of the big three who play in red.

Mic drop.

[Dr.Spaceman]

1 hour ago, Froggy said:

 

I feel like there should be a salary cap or something along those lines. I'm not a financial expert but I feel like there should be a better solution than what we have now. At the same time I think total removal of PSR would be a disaster for modern football.

 

I don't want teams to be unable to spend money they have, but I also don't want teams to be able to spend all of the money they have.

 

You're arguing with a minority on this. In my experience we (Newcastle fans) tend to agree with you.

[Froggy]

10 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

There were seven different clubs who were champions in seven consecutive season from 58/59.  There were eight different clubs who were champions between 66/67 and 77/78.  The notion that it’s never been more competitive at the top is absolutely laughable.

 

The difference between then and now?  The greed of Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal - and a revolving door of acolytes.  

 

The fact you have to go back 70 years to try and negate my point should tell you everything. If the league wasn't competitive, clubs like Palace, Brighton, Bournemouth and Brentford wouldn't be breaking their historical ceilings on a regular basis. Chelsea, Spurs, Man United etc. are finishing in the bottom half of the table. 

 

8 different Premier League clubs have won major trophies since 2025.

 

I also said the league is more competitive than it has ever been. Competitiveness isn't just about first place. 

 

1 minute ago, lovejoy said:

Mic drop.

 

Not sure how complaining about clubs having global support can be considered a mic drop. It's pretty weak to be honest.

 

I won't take lectures from someone about my support when I spent thousands of pounds watching us labour to 15th.  

 

28 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I haven’t seen anyone on here argue for that at all - folks will have their own opinion of what the rules should look like (I’ve always advocated for expenditure being capped to the highest club’s turnover from the previous season).  I don’t doubt that stupid Twitter nobheads want it uncapped - probably because they’re thick enough to think that PIF would chuck unlimited money at us (they wouldn’t).

 

I don’t think sovereign states should be able to own football clubs.  They should be community assets.

 

This isn't so weak. I agree with this (aside from a lot of fans wanting to be able to spend what PIF are capable of spending).

[Froggy]

Just now, Dr.Spaceman said:

You're arguing with a minority on this. In my experience we (Newcastle fans) tend to agree with you.

 

Maybe so. It's not the impression I've been given from numerous debates on here.

 

I think Newcastle is a great club and a great city. It's not like I'm making up arguments to have a go. 

 

If you don't watch PSR abolished entirely, what alterations would you make where it would be seen as fair in your eyes?